So how many users do you think really owned both the cards and descided to do a head to head comparision of both the cards. This is just going to turn out into flame wars. If you really want to find out yourself conduct a test among your friends using similar setups.

So how many users do you think really owned both the cards and descided to do a head to head comparision of both the cards. This is just going to turn out into flame wars. If you really want to find out yourself conduct a test among your friends using similar setups.

Click to expand...

I did. I don't have to find out anything already. For me they are both the same.

I'm glad this thread was started! As a matter of fact, I'm trying to test the differences in IQ between the two right now. By the way, I started a "I need help with my 3850" thread, so stop on over if you can give me some insigthts. Thanks. I'll throw up some screens this weekend.

but.. at the end of the day it wont stop bitching in other threads, as the arguments are within a specific, often thread-specific context.

But I wish this thread well, I will not partake in it (unless people do actually behave responsibly and use this thread as a fact vault, with tested proof, not fan boyish arguments ), if only not to further fuel any innevitable arson being commited

I'll have to abstain since I don't own either new generation cards. Sould have a 4th option for "I'm not sure." You will (probably) still get the fanboys choosing their brand based on loyalty rather than first hand experience.

I'll have to abstain since I don't own either new generation cards. Sould have a 4th option for "I'm not sure." You will (probably) still get the fanboys choosing their brand based on loyalty rather than first hand experience.

Click to expand...

As long as they give some proof... or whatever they post. Anything would be ok. I mean they could post an image where they see a huge difference. But chances are that many people wouldn't see any, and the image will still be useful. The image it's there, the claim of superior IQ would be there, but then it's all up to the reader to decide if there's any difference and the job is done.

About your 4th option suggestion, I have thought about it and I think that "not sure" and "no difference" is the same if you have experience with the cards.

Don't have any screenies (yet) but I have noticed between my system (ati, see specs) and my dad's (nvidia, see sig) that ati looks alot crisper and vibrant (even though he is on a higher resolution screen which costed nearly twice as much, lol!). Nvidia tends to look quite grainy and "flat", at least from what I have seen anyway.

Don't have any screenies (yet) but I have noticed between my system (ati, see specs) and my dad's (nvidia, see sig) that ati looks alot crisper and vibrant (even though he is on a higher resolution screen which costed nearly twice as much, lol!). Nvidia tends to look quite grainy and "flat", at least from what I have seen anyway.

Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for posting, and congrats since you are the first one to give a reason for your voting.

I'm glad you made this thread. I've only had Nvidia cards so far, starting from the MX400 and ending up to the 8800GT, but the earlier one weren't my choices. I hear all the time that ATI give a better image quality and are cheaper, but since now I haven't had the opportunity to test out ATI vs Nvidia myself. Hence I'm very interested in the outcome of this thread.

I've owned both, but it really only is valid when you compare similar-level cards in the same generation. Also toss in driver tweaks and you've got a real challenge. Look at the new Crossfire X supersampling when you're 16x and above........ATI's tends to make everything look too soft and fuzzy. BUT..........who really runs 32x? Seriously. The performance hit is exponential and foolish......it's of no practical value whatsoever.

So then compare apples to apples: 4x AA, HDR, other regular stuff. Generally looks the same between the cards. There may be some subtle differences, sure, but overall I've not noticed much difference.

Also: keep in mind these are side-by-side comparisons, with a single screenshot, that are often isolated and enlarged. Does anyone here really think such nuances will be noticed when you're running around in a game at 60 fps, busy actually playing? Those minor differences (if any) won't even be noticed since you're too busy playing, not to mention you won't have another card/system running simultaneously to notice a difference. 99.999999% of the people here don't run games in ATI/Nvidia simultaneously LOL.......so, without a basis for comparison, nobody will actually tell the difference in a real world gaming application.

All things being considered, image quality is virtually a wash nowadays. It would be wiser to pick a card based on price-to-performance, overall performance (if you're a nut for horsepower), power draw, noise, and heat criteria. That's where you'll see BIG differences that will set one card apart from another.......not looking at some single frame enlargement, trying to grasp subtle minutae and nuanced differences in pixellated images LOL.

im glad this thread is out...and i dont think it will become a flame watr would you like to know why?...because we should all be pretty mature about it..all this talk about it only taking one person is ture to a point...for example some 13 year old will be like hey hey look at me im a fanboi!!!! well that is proably going to happen and theirs no stopping it however for those of us who are older and want to understand more of the technical aspecs rather than backing your favorite company than it will be a good thread because all we have to do to make this a success is ignore those ppl....as for me....i think ATI has better imag quality...in screen shots and comparisons some spacifics are diff that ati renders a little better....but only for certian things that iv noticed for example like rock textures in some games ati does better but water and similar things would be exactly the same....me? i use nvidia because they tend to play games slightely faster because i am TOLD nvidia doesnt render things as sharply but out of my personall experiance.....in my vid card timeline....radeon 7500,9250,9800,x1600XT Nvidia 8600GT,9600GT their is no diff imo...i suppose their might be...if i had an ati card and an nvidia card form the same generation like an 8600 compared to a 2900 and i could boot 2 computers and compair at the same time...however though i might see a diff it would probably be imo if i looked for something to be spacifically diff....out of all the cards iv owned i havent seen any diff in image quality in my day to day gaming and though nvidia is my personal pref atm...as you can see iv owned more ati and if i were to reccomend a card to somebody give me a budget and what you want to do and ill find you the best choice totally non biased

keep in mind this is the 2900XT and is the only recent dirt I could find on either.

- Christine

Click to expand...

It's about everything that you think that should be mentioned.

And thanks you for the link, since it's really interesting. I liked the transparency AA thing, that will look better on closer vegetation on Ati, but distant vegetation on Nvidia. But the difference is negligible anyway, and just shows how complicated is to say one is better than the other.

I don't think the thing with the flashlight is common nowadays. Any Ati owner can confirm please? If persist we can conclude that in this specific feature of this single one game Nvidia is the clear winner, but Ati looks ok too, just doesn't get the same effect. Not that you won't buy an Ati card because of this...

i have to go with nvidia i have used both and TBH i have an FX5700 that looks better than a 3850 (same monitor same res) and the WS cards from what i could see looked better on the NV cards than the ATi ones